poemanja

There are two things going on here, the story and the documentary/reality show.

FIRST, THE STORY

This is a haunting story and it's very emotional. Viewer discretion advised. Most people will probably be unable to look away because of the absurdity and the mystery.

I will just say this is not for the faint of heart or children because there is some creepy dark stuff.

It's a very personal story.

SECOND, THE SHOW

Season one - Natalia is a monster and we should be horrified that this happened to the Barnetts.

Season two - The Barretts are monsters and we should be horrified that this happened to Natalia.

Overall, I think the creators really demonstrate how easy it is to manipulate a story. Facts can be left out when it's convenient. Music choice and even lighting in photos can totally change what you're seeing.

There are some dramatic re-enactments. They add visuals, but they might be getting carried away with the story here. Photos and real videos are used too and at times it's unclear what is recreated and what is record. I recommend captions that say "re-enactment" to be a little more clear in the future.

I think the show could be edited better. There is a lot of repetition. It is drawn out. The show could've been about half as long. Michael prepping for court went on FOREVER. But if you're patient enough to sit through the summary for the 20th time, the story is gripping.

I don't like that season 1 shows us sexual photos (with certain portions covered up) that were obviously meant to be private messages. It feels like revenge porn to show the whole world and I think we did not need to see that.

But it is clear there was a lot of research done and a lot of work that went into crafting it. I applaud the creators for their work, though I do have my criticisms.

Towards the end it does seem to get into reality TV a bit.

I think the show ideally sparks conversation about safety and families and hopefully makes us think about how we can better keep each other safe.

Dragonslayer: 7/10 Excellent use of special effects and dragon puppets.

Female characters appear to have agency.

The romance is pretty convincing, there is some humor.

There is a gentle critique of monarchy and religion.

However the wizard is a confusing character who defies logic.

Peoples' names are used only once if at all, which is perhaps ok but we don't know what the characters are called mostly.

The plot is somewhat simple and whimsical - childish perhaps- but there are also many dark themes and one rather gory scene.

I think it suffers from not knowing whether it's supposed to appeal to children or adults.

I enjoyed this film. It's got the aesthetic of Christmas, some romance and friendship. The main character is kinda selfish and we see where she goes from that. I thought the music and visuals were pretty good. The story was interesting. I was surprised by the twist! I didn't expect it at all. I have to watch it again.

I love Christmas music - last Christmas is one of the best songs. I love to see movies inspired by something so small as a single song.

I am left feeling full of hope, happy to exist today.

There is some drinking and harsh language but I think most parents could let their children watch it.

This movie didn't take itself too seriously. It seems to make fun of the horror genre while itself being horror.

There is violence but it is not excessively graphic (mostly stabbing and blood).

There are mystery and comedic elements. The film was clearly created by someone who loves horror films.

Acting is great. They mention a lot of horror movies by name. Honestly if someone wanted to do a study of horror, it seems like a good thing to do would be take a pen and write down all the movies they reference. It's a great place to start anyway.

I think truly if you don't like this movie you probably do not like horror/slasher movies (which is fine!).

There are female characters who are pretty neat in the film.

People are not always very good at their job-even the killer honestly is not very effective at times. I think this is a sign of good writing when people are flawed. You're not supposed to have perfect characters.

It's, now almost 30 years old, kind of a historical relic too when you look at how life was like when phones were scarce. The movie would have to be written differently if it took place today because we all have cell phones. I'm going to watch the sequels I think, but I'm sure the sparkle of this first movie will not be matched. Originals are always better.

I enjoy watching these episodes. Writing feels lazy.

While the Simpson's may have lewd jokes or subtle adult themes, sex is the plot of a lot of Futurama episodes. Don't watch this with children.

The show often relies on stereotypes and spoofing other things.

Every episode is kinda circular, I mean it must reset to normalcy. This is how TV was at the time the show began, people couldn't binge whole seasons like they can now. But nonetheless when you put them all together it creates a somewhat inconsistent storyline.

Bender is interesting sometimes lives for many years and seems immortal. Sometimes he appears close to death after a few hours without alcohol.

It's a little weird how much they hate and are mean to Zoidberg. Makes me sad.

Women judges get half the votes? Seriously? Female robots are highly sexualized. Male characters typically do not respect female ones.

Leela and Fry have a weird relationship. Fry is pining after Leela. Sometimes it seems like they're made to be together and then the next episode Leela hates him. It feels like lazy writing.

There is a lot of sexual assault in the show that is downplayed or made into a joke.

I don't understand why they keep Bender around when he is literally the villain in half the episodes.

There are a handful of great episodes that really try to explore a scientific or social concept, but many are not memorable.

I guess to sum up, it's not too deep. If you want to not think too much this one is pretty good to chill with-but not with kids!

Was intrigued because Ray Harryhausen has done many great films. This particular film uses him very little.

While I don't think we always have to like the main character(s), we should be able to understand their motivations. Main guy Arnold Bedford is totally uncontrollable and appears to have neither values nor goals. The other two leads aren't bad: a scientist who wants to understand the universe and a lady who wants to get married.

I don't understand why they go to the moon together.

The logistics of getting to the moon are strange and the plan for getting home is never explained.

For being made in 1960s, the science is really bad.

How is possible that this movie feels both that it goes too slowly and like it is missing crucial pieces?

Not sure what happened with this film but it didn't quite come together. 4/10.

We're looking at Scooby Doo, but it's a pimp, a drug dealer, and a sex worker.

Acting is great. Writing/dialogue is awesome. The audience feels compelled to keep watching because the trio has great chemistry. Yay for John Boyega, Teyonah Parris, and Jamie Foxx. They form almost a DND-esque group with different strengths.

Sometimes it is funny and there are also some deeper moments about race in USA.

Lots of profanity.

Mild violence, but no gore.

Sexual themes, but no graphic sex.

I thought it was a great story about a tough situation. Why are there clones? Find out!

Visuals are outstanding. It's a mix of every decade from the 1970s to the 2020s.

My one complaint is that we spend the movie mostly confused over who Tyrone is. Fontaine is the name of the main character. His buddies are Yo-Yo and Slick Charles.

It's worth watching if you like watching terrible movies.

Costumes - All the apelike characters have fake teeth which makes it difficult for them to speak properly, especially at the beginning of the movie.

-Ape women wear human makeup from the time period the movie was made in.

Plot - hard to follow? It seems the focus is more on action and vague vibe.

Characters - mostly pretty dreadful. It seems the ape characters can't quite decide how apelike they should be.

• The human characters can't quite decide how smart they should be.

• Peoples' names are difficult to catch, if they have them at all, and it's unclear what motivates them.

• Many side characters appear sheeplike, blindly following main characters for no reason.

Misc. Gripes - the difference between humans and apes seems to be unclear and unknown

• As bad as it is at the beginning, you will not like the ending.

If you prefer good movies, the original film exists from 1968, and is much better. The prequels exist and are also worth review. This one is not very good.

They used the exact same script! There were a few edits, extra songs, etc., but it really was the exact same movie as before.

The visuals were stunning, I will give it that.

The story is wonderful, I will give it that.

The biggest difference is probably the Hyenas. They go from being a gaggle of goofy losers to a fortified army.

They decided to take away the human facial expressions from the original cartoon to make the animals more "realistic." There is more animal body language than human. While I understand the idea of trying to be authentic, one must realize: this is still a human story. Animals will not be singing in "real life." But, I guess the creators are the ones to decide how human they want their animals.

I found it difficult to tell the lionesses apart.

At the end of the day, we can still go watch the old movie. It's still out there.

Baseball tricks, women bonding, and a fight against the patriarchy.

This movie has a lot of great stuff in it. I love that Geena Davis's character decides to leave the game after a season, because it's her choice - even though she's the greatest. It demonstrates agency.

I'm thoroughly entertained by the sister drama.

Thank god the Tom Hanks character doesn't have a romance with Geena Davis. They're great buddies.

Overall it's a good story, even if you're not super interested in sports!

The weird part is that at the end there are many old people walking around a baseball hall of fame and playing baseball together and it's honestly not needed. The film is most interesting when the young people are making history.

If the old people did something other than be nostalgic, I could see it. But they don't; they just wander and hug and stuff. I would've cut the old people out of it.

The first season is incredible.

Explore themes of ethics, AI, technology, games, etc.

View stunning-often violent-visuals.

Acting, script, effects, editing are all great. Fall in love with the characters. Imagine going to Westworld yourself. Then watch the drama unfold...it's Shakespeare and Jurassic Park and Skyrim and Star Trek mushed into a carefully cultivated feast for the brain.

GIVE IT ONE SEASON. The last episode has a twist (which I won't spoil here). It was one of the most satisfying mind-blows I've had in my days.

-

The second season tries to scramble for more content, but the story has already been told. There is no more masterpiece.

I haven't read the book, but just from the movie, these are my thoughts:

I love the design of the castle. Calcifer and Turnip-head are cute and wonderful. But the story to me reads like a young woman is abused (turned into an old lady, forced to work). Then she falls in love with her abuser? Gross.

Why doesn't she end up with turnip-head? He's literally a prince and in love with her. He is actually nice to her. Howl is a jerk and he doesn't deserve her.

Visuals are great. Story is not. The story outside of the romance is weird too. Skip this one, watch Spirited Away, My Neighbor Totoro, or Princess Mononoke instead.

Seems like this movie is trying to glorify war.

In the book, Laura Hillenbrand makes it very clear that the people are in very real danger, totally unprepared, and upset with the military they are a part of.

The movie gives more "yay we won" vibes.

Also, when I read the book, I was captivated by the endless narration and vivid descriptions of how the main character feels. He was to the point of giving up, but he never did. There were so many moments of near-hopelessness, but through luck and determination the guy makes it through!

The movie seems tame, by comparison. A lot of the gruesome passages were not put in the movie. It also doesn't really captivate the emotional complexity one feels from the book.

If there could've been some narration going over the movie, we could maybe gleam some insight into how the guy was feeling and what he was thinking. Instead it's just some guy who seems unhappy.

I feel that the book shows us more of what the character, this real human being who suffered a lot, really suffered. The movie doesn't do him justice.

At first, the film seems great. Jack Black's character Carl is evil, we get to see that. Naomi Watts' character Ann is desperate. Adrien Brody's character Jack doesn't wanna be a part of this but is literally stuck in a cage and forced on the ship. The writer in the brig image is hilarious.

Then they get to the island and things go downhill. Caricatures of indigenous islanders act demonic as nauseating camera shots make us wildly uncomfortable.

Andy Serkis does his best, and so does Naomi Watts but it's just not that interesting to watch Kong and Ann stare at each other for hours.

Soundtrack seems like it wasn't given much time and ended up very dull.

Things that could've been done to make this a better film: -leave out the native people if you're going to put them in so terribly -actually develop indigenous characters and make them more human -cut most of the long "staring into each other's eyes" scenes -explore more about the time period; why were people so desperate to go along with Carl's plots?

-explain why everyone is so eager to die to save Ann -was Kong always a gorilla? Wasn't he just some lost relative of a gorilla in the first one? It would be more interesting to have him be a different creature. It also would've lessened the weirdness when Ann and Kong seem to have a romance -is King Kong a metaphor for colonization? Could that be made more explicit?

Overall it wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen...but it wasn't very good.

"I'm just so tired of watching myself and every single other woman tie herself into knots so that people will like us. And if all of that is also true for a doll..."

Bro I was so excited just to look at the beautiful painted sets and watch the beautiful Barbies and Kens wear goofy clothes...but this was a deep movie.

The seemingly perfect matriarchal world of Barbie has has a sudden setback when the perfectly Stereotypical Barbie (Margot Robbie)'s heels land flatly on the ground.

Barbie has to leave Barbieland through a surreal theatrical series of vehicles to wind up in California, where she meets her creators at Mattel and others.

Of course Mattel, one of the producers, wanted to paint themselves in a positive light. They probably over-emphasize their importance in the playroom (They assert Barbie was the first doll to not be a baby doll, the first opportunity little girls had to play at being something other than a mother, which I find hard to believe). But there is definitely some honest criticism in the movie of who Barbie is and what she represents. Does Barbie make women feel bad about their bodies? Maybe.

There are also a couple very playful moments where it feels almost like it feels when one plays with toys. Made me think of the Lego Movie (Which also had Will Ferrell in it).

Then there's the characters. There is humor. There is music. There are of, course, gorgeous people and sets. But most of all, there is self-actualization and growth.

I love every line in this film. I keep thinking about it. I've seen the movie twice now and I hope to see it again. Please watch it. Prepare to cry.